# OAR Box 1793 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 10 ) ll-F-5 2 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/3/2008 11:31:54

AM Sheet 10 of 45 p. 1P. 2 

## A-90-3? 

# FA X COVE RSHEE T AFFAIR S DATE :

% 

# A L NUMBE

RO F PAGES : COMMENTS : APL
-** > r* » c\ *-* * n An rs 

## j j APR S (T|9g5 ri'-*/w

_L ._/ . 

# J 

# I F VO U D O NO T RECEIV

E AL L PAGES PLEAS E CONTAC

T U S A S SOO

N A S POSSIBLE . VERIFICATIO

N NO. : 202-395-308 4 O R202 - 395-734 0 OIR A FA X NO. : 202-395-728 5 8 kP. 3



### KSBIuufis 1 . Genera

l a ) I s thi s NS Rreform ? I s i tbette r tha n n o change ?

- EP A believe s tha tthi s proposa

l wil l reduc e th e cos to f

NSR ; w e thin

k tha to n balanc e i tincrease s cost s ove r th e curren tNS Rregulations . J£ n particular, w e believ e th e BAC T determinatio n proces s an d th e Federa

l Land Manage r proces s (wit h th e associate d requirement s t o asses s AQR V effect s i n netting , etc. ) fUi significantl y t o th e burde n o f th e curren

tprocess . Ou r efforts t o com e t o grip s with thi s throug

h EPA' s cos tanalysi s have been largely frustrated . 2 . Applicabilit

y
a ) "Actual-to-Futur e Actual " languag e equa l WEPCO ?

- EPA' s ne w languag e mimics WEPCO . b ) Us e additiona

l languag e from "Puert

o Ric o cement " t o suppor tlik e kind replacement/actual-to-future actual .

--- • EPA' s OG C doe s no taccep tDOE' s vie w o f "P Rcement" .
c ) Applicabilit

y determined throug

h minor NSR , no tself-implementing .P. 4

- EP A argue s tha

tWEPC O i s administered through Stat e NSR , thi s proposa l provide s a s muc

h flexibilit y a s WEPCO . d ) Federal enforceabilit

y require d fo r ftiture emissions ?

- Yei . EP A wil l discuss , though , th e D.C . Circuitreman d i n th e preamble .
e ) Repea t199 2 W£PC O languag e o n wh y WEPC O i s good ? EP A ha s added som e 199 2 WEPC O language ; DO E believe s EP A shoul d add mor e o f th e 199 2 WEPC O language .
" -:"^\ . f ) Support"deman

d growt h exclusion" ?

- EPA' s languag e continue s t o b e skeptica l o f a broa d applicatio n o f

"deman d growth exclusion" ; EPA' s languag e set s ou ta "neutral " reques tfo r comment s fo r WEPC O (i.e. , retaining th e deman d growt h exclusio n jus tfo r electri c utilities) . g ) Netting , "clea

n unit" , pollutio n control/preventio n projects PALs , etc . mus tevaluat e effec to n NAAQS , PS D increments , an d AQRVs . AQR

V effects wil l b e especiall y difficultt o evaluat e an

d ma y entai l a length y revie w process .P. 5
EP A has retained thes e requirements . Evaluatio n an d revie w o f

AQR V effect . W y t o b e burdensome fo r an y sourc e within 25 0 k

m o f a Federa l Clas s I area.P. 6
h ) Treatmento f

Pollutio n Control/Preventio n Projects : * • (I ) Rewrite s WEPC O t o make i ta permitting process : include s toxic s an d AQRVs . Modelin g i s required ; no tjus ta permitting authorit y option .

- EPA' s languag e n o longe r include s toxics ; AQR V revie w wil l b e burdensome (a s note d above) . Preambl e languag e seem s t o increas e th e burde n o n th e sourc e t o demonstrate (model? ) tha tn o advers e effects wil l occur , but , i ti s no tclea r whethe r thi s i s a chang e tha

timpose s substantia

l ne w burdens o n sources . (ii ) Definitio n o f

pollutio n contro l projecti s closed .

- EP A promise s t o fix this . (iii ) Draw s a "bead " o n deman d growt h exclusion .

- Yes ; especiall y fo r broa d applicatio n beyon d WEPCO . (iv ) Environmentally beneficia l tes trequire

d for pollutio n preventio n projects ?

- Yes . EP A staf

f repor tthey ma y offer som e relie f

fo r repeatprojects . (Note : proposa

l drop s th e environmentall y beneficia

l tes ti n WEPC O fo r pollutio n contro l projects) .P. 7 (v ) Energ y Efficiency Projects exclude d from PPP ?

- - Yes . 3 . BACT/Technolog y Issue s
a ) Federa l BAC T i s "top-down " Yes . b ) State BAC T i s implicitly "top-down" .

- Yes , a s currentl

y written . (I ) EP A shoul d includ e 197 7 Senat e Repor tlanguage . EPA ha s don e so . (ii ) EP A shoul d mak

e "maximu

m reduction feasible " a functio n o f al l factors (p statutor y language) , no tjus ta technolog y test . EP A has revise d its language ; w e ar e evaluatin g it .P. 8 (iii ) Pu t"cost-effectiveness " int o rule languag e an

d elaborat

e o n th e rol e o f

CE in the. preamble . Ha s DO E provide d language ? 4 . FLM. Clas s I Issue s
a ) EP A shoul d drop/revis e preamble languag e requirin g State s t o giv e deferenc e t o FL M EP A has change d languag e t o "recognize " expertis e o f FLM , instea d o f

deferring t o th e FLM ; allow s State s t o us e expert s t o counte r FLM . b ) Onl y "defined " AQRV s need b e evaluated b y source , considere d b y State . EPA reject

s thi s position .
c ) Rul e languag e shoul d includ e specifi c criteria tha tFLM shoul d mee tin submittin g a "Notic e o f

Potential Advers e Impact " t o th e State . EPA ha s decline d suggeste d changes ; EPA' s revise d preambl e languag e drop s th e "causa l link " discussio n i

n favo r o f muc h softe r language ._E_a_ ,
d ) Exclud e df

l minimis sources . EP A ha s decline d suggeste d rule language . EP A ha s adde d preambl e languag e askin g fo r comments an

d ideas o n wa y t o implemen ta d s minii-m

a approach , but th e discussio n doe s no toffe r a specifi c approach .
e ) Burde n o f

AQR V analysi s fo r a demonstration , o f advers e impact , o n th e FL M o r o n th e source ? EPA' s rule/preambl e clearly place s th e burde n o f doin g AQR V analysi s o n th e source .



## __£ !